Earman, Carnap, Kuhn, and The Philosophy of Scientific Methodology (1993)
Earman, Carnap, Kuhn, and The Philosophy of Scientific Methodology (1993)
Earman, Carnap, Kuhn, and The Philosophy of Scientific Methodology (1993)
Scientific Methodology
John Earman /
1 Introduction
For the past two decades logical positivism has served as a whipping
boy. By emphasizing the shortcomings of this failed philosophical,
program, the virtues of the new postpositiyist pTi|osop_hy__of_sciencc
arc made to seem more lustrous. It is, of course, not surprising to
find such polemical devices employed, since they are common to the
rhetoric of revolutions, whether political, scientific, or philosophical.
Or so the standard assessment would go. What I find askew in this
assessment is the notion that a philosophical revolution as opposed
to an evolution has taken place. For although I am no apologist for
logical positivism, it does sccoiJo jme that many of the themes£fjJT£
so-called postpositivist philosophy of jscicncc arc extensions of ideas
found in the writings oLCarnap and other leading logical positivists
and logical emplficlstC^But my purpose here is not to contribute to
a revisionist history of philosophy. Rather, I aim to pay homage to
both Carnap and Kuhn by noting some striking similarities and also
some striking differences. These similarities and differences are use-
ful in helping to focus some of the still unresolved issues about the
nature of scientific methodology.
The members of the Vienna Circle often took votes on the issues
they debated. While I have no documentary evidence to offer of an
John Earman
aclual vole, I am morally certain of what the rcsull would have been
for ihc question, Verification is a relation between what and what?
In "x is verified by y,"j&fs presumably a sentence. And it is tempting
to lake^jHo be a fact, stale of affairs, or something in ihe world lhal
makes AC iruc and can be directly ascertained. But an attempt to
compare language and ihe world would have slruck ihe Circle mem-
bers as of a piece with the metaphysics thai ihe verifiabilily principle
of meaning was supposed lo banish. Their alternative was lo lake y
lo be another sentence, for then the relationjjctwecn x and y is an .
unproblcmalic logical _ rcjation._Th.Í5 move, however, seems lo leave j
us in ihc same metaphysical thickel since verificalion would seem to /
require thai y is a true sentence, and is not a true sentence one that /
corresponds to the facls?
The escape lhat some of ihe circle members soughl was a resort to
a coherence theory of truth. Eventually, however, Carnap abandoned
resort, presumably because of a combinalion of the drawbacks
of the coherence account of truth and the allracliveness of '
theory of truth. Bui whal I wish to emphasize here are ihe qualifi-
calions that Carnap put on any talk about comparing stalemenls wilh
facls. In "Truth and Confirmation" (1949) he emphasized lhat he
preferred lo speak of confronling slatements wilh facts:
There has been a good deal of dispute as to whether in ihc procedure
scientific testing slatements must be compared with facts or as lo whether such
comparisons be unnecessary, if nol impossible. If "comparison of slalerncnl
wilh fact" means ihc procedure which we called ihc firsl opcralio^rylhcn it
musí be adinillcd lhal ihis procedure is nol only possible, bul even indis-
pensable for scientific testing. Yel il musí be remarked lhal ihc formulation
"comparison of statement and fact" is nol unobjeclionable. First, ihe conccpl
"comparison" is not quilc appropriate here. Two objecls can be compared
in regard lo a properly which m i r r j j a rn rlnrj ~ r them in varia
We ihcrefore prefer lo speak of "cwnfronlalihH" ralhcr ihan^compansol
Confrontation is understood to consX^jrjJiMnng out as to
fact is such as is described in the statement, or, lo express it differently, as
lo whether the statement is true to fact. (1949, 125)
Carnap then continued with a passage that might have served as an
advertisement for Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Furthermore, ihc formulalion in icrms of "comparison," in speaking of
"facls" or "realities" easily Icmpts one inlo the absolutislic view according lo
JJ
Carnap, Kulin, and the Philosophy of Scientific Methodology
which we arc said to search for an absolulc reality whose nature is assumed
as fixed independently of the language chosen for its description. The answer
to a question concerning reality however depends not only upon that "reality"
or upon the facts, but also upon the structure (and the set concepts) of the
language used for the description. In translating one language into another
the factual content of an empirical statement cannot always be preserved
unchanged. Such changes arc inevitable if the structures of the two languages
differ .inessential points. (1949, 125-126)
Here we have two of the key theses oTthe^gostpositivisl" philosophy i
of science:, the noncxistcnce of neutral facts and incommensurabilly
in the foriTiof''ftiftn^Trof™iriKrrtTanshrtabHfly. NotcTttMrt-tucsc theses
were propounded in the mid 1930s/for although I have, for the sake
of convenience, quoted from the 1949 version of Carnap's paper, the
relevant passage is also in "Wahrhcil und Bewahrung" (1936)./* |
Given these Kuhnian themes—or should we rather say Carnapian
themes?—one might predict that Carnap would have found Structure
philosophically congenial. That this was indeed the case has been
documented by Rcisch (1991). Structure was published as part of the
International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, of which Carnap was
an associate editor. After reading the completed manuscript for Struc-
ture, Carnap wrote to Kuhn in April of 1962. The text of the letter
is reproduced in Reisch 1991. I will quote from notes written in
Carnap's archaic shorthand. Carnap begins with a piece of Darwinian
evolution and then adds, concerning Kuhn's thesis,
In analogy to this one has to understand the development of scientific the-
ories: not directed to an ideal [true] theory, the one true theory of the world,
but evolution as a step to a belter form, by selection of one oul of several
competing forms. The selection is made on ihc basis of preference in ihc
community of scientists. Many factors, sociological, c u l t u r a l , . . . , are involved.
Nol:vwe are approaching irulh, but: we arc improving an instrument
with each other and both arc true; the controversy has ceased to
exist" (1935, 451). This model for resolving philosophical disputes in •
the philosophy of mathematics was supposed by Carnap to be cxtend-
iblc quite broadly to philosophical disputes, such as phenomenalism
versus materialism and the question of whether space-time points
have an existence independent of physical events.
Some, like Donald Davidson (1973), have found an air of paradox
in the fact that saying in one breath (as Carnap thought he could)
that 5 is true in L\, LS, Las, • • . but false in L?, ¿4, ... seems to
presuppose a neutral metaframe within which all the language frames
can be treated.6 Others, like Michael Friedman (1992), have argued
that Carnap's relativism is undercut by Godel's incompleteness theo-
rems, which show that no such neutral metaframe is available. My
objections are more local and tactical.
My first complaint is that Carnap assumes what needs to be proved.
According to Carnap's "principle of tolerance," we are free to choose
whatever language system we like. The decision is largely a pragmatic
affair, turning on such matters as efficiency and fruitfulness for the
-purposes at hand. But to apply the slogan of "free to choose" to
dissolve, say, the phenomenalism versus materialism debate assumes
that a phenomenalistic language has been produced that shows how
physical object talk can be reduced to talk about sensa data or, as
Carnap preferred, momentary total experiences ("Elementarerlcb-
nissc"). This, of course, is exactly what Carnap tried to do in the
Av/lau. But by his own admission, the attempt has to counted as a
¿35, . . . and false by linguistic fiat in L2, LT, ¿37 ..... and then we
just pays our money and takes our choice of language. Again I refuse
to give a global answer to this query and favor instead a tactical
response. All indications are that the debate over the implications for
deterijiinism of the Bell inequalities and the Aspect experiments
belongs to the former rather than to the latter. Indeed, indications
are that in any language system adequate for the formulation of
theories that save the experimentally verifiable quantum statistics, the
laws must be indeterministic. 9
I suspect that Carnap's relativism began by his being impressed by
the achievements of Frege, Russell, and others in the philosophy of
mathematics and was furthered by a misplaced zeal for extending his
model for resolving philosophical disputes in this area to a broad
area of philosophical and scientific questions. Of course, whatever
the origins of Carnap's relativism, it or something like it could per-
haps be promoted on the basis of his doctrine that language-neutral
facts do not exist. I find it difficult to assess this matter, since I do
not find in Carnap's writing a helpful explanation of this
In the following section I will comment on the related doctrine of
Feycrabcnd, Hanson, and Kuhn that observation is theory laden.
In closing this section, I note that Carnap displayed a consistency
on the matter at hand — not the consistency that is the hobgoblin of
little minds but the magnificent consistency of a grand visionary. In
his contribution to the Schilpp volume for Carnap, Herbert Fcigl
(1963) sketched a mind-body identity theory that he was later to
elaborate in his famous essay "The 'Mental' and the Thysi-
caF"(1958).'° Clearly, the politically correct thing for Carnap was to
endorse Fcigl's approach. Instead, he wrote, "it seems preferable to
me to formulate the question [of mind-body identity] in the meta-
language, not as a factual question about the world, but as a question
concerning the choice of language. Although we prefer a different
language, we must admit that a dualistic language can be constructed
and used without coming into conflict with cither the laws of logic or
with empirically known facts" (1963b, 885-886).
4 Kuhn's Relativism
Kuhn resists being labeled a relativist. I use the label here to refer to
three doctrines of Structure: the theory ladenncss of observation, the
]G
John Earnian
17
Carnap, Kulin, and the Philosophy of Scientific Methodology
postulated and the manner in which these fields relate to such things
as particle orbits. This language is anachronistic and so may not be
the best device to use when trying to decide various historical dis-
putes." But it does seem to me to be an appropriate vehicle for
framing and answering the sorts of questions of most concern to
working physicists and philosophers of science. For example, on the
basis of the available evidence, what is it reasonable to believe about
the structure of space and time and the nature of gravitation? This
is not to say that the common language makes for an easy answer. It
is indeed a difficult business, but it is a business that involves the
same sorts of difficulties already present when testing theories that
lie on the same side of a scientific revolution. Finally, so that there
can be no misunderstanding, let me repeat: I am not claiming (hat
what I call a common language provides what Kuhn wants. It docs
not show, for example, that the Newtonian and the Einstcinian can
be brought into agreement about what is and is not a "meaningful"
question about simultaneity. But what I do claim is that these residual
elements of incommensurability do not undermine standard accounts
of theory testing and confirmation. 12
My response to worries about the applicability of the notion of
truth to whole theories is similarly local and tactical. In the Postscript
to the second edition of Structure, Kuhn writes, "There is, I think, no
theory-independent way to reconstruct phrases like 'really there'; the
notion of a match between the ontology of a theory and its 'real'
counterpart in nature now seems to me illusive in principle" (1970,
206). I need not demur if "theory" is understood in 'a very broad
sense to mean something like a conceptual framework so minimal
that without it "the world" would be undifferenliated Kantian ooze.
But I do demur if "theory" is taken in the ordinary sense, i.e., as
Newton's theory or special-relativity theory or general-relativity the-
ory.13 For scientists are currently working in a frame in which they
can say, correctly I think, that the match between the ontology of the
theory and its real counterpart in nature is better for the special
theory of relativity and even better for the general theory. Of course,
to get to this position required two major coneptual revolutions. How
such revolutions affect theory choice, or as I would prefer to say,
theory testing and confirmation, remains to be discussed.
]9
Carnap, Kuhn, and the Philosophy of Scientific Methodology
In these matters neither proof nor error is at issue. The transfer of allegiance
from paradigm to paradigm is a conversion experience that cannot be forced.
(P. 151)
Before they can hope to communicate fully, one group or the other must
experience the conversion that we have been calling a paradigm shift. Just
because it is a shift between incommensurables, the transition between com-
peting paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic and
neutral experience. Like a gcslalt switch, it must occur all at once (though
not necessarily at an instant) or not at all. (P. 150)
The passage Reisch (1991) quotes from Carnap's letter to Kuhn and
the passage from Carnap's shorthand notes I quoted in section 2
would seem to indicate that Carnap and Kuhn were in substantial
agreement as regards paradigm choice. This is surely the case when
"paradigm" is interpreted to mean something like a linguistic frame-
work. At this level Carnap would agree, indeed, would insist, on the
need to choose, and he would hold that the choice is'a pragmatic one
whose dynamics may well involve the sorts of factors emphasized in
Kuhn's account. But when the focus shifts to theories, as it does in •
Kuhn's later writings, the disagreement begins. In the first place,
Kuhn's list of criteria for theory choice is conspicuous for its omission
of any reference to the degrees of confirmation or probabilities of
the theories. This is not an oversight, of course, but derives both
from explicit doctrines, such as the nonexistence of a theory-neutral
observation language, and the largely tacit but pervasive anti-induc-
tivism of Structure. Needless to say, this shunning of confirmation
theory is most un-Carnapian. But even more anomalous from Car-
nap's perspective is Kuhn's emphasis on theory choice or acceptance,
for in Carnap's version of epistemology, theories arc not chosen or
accepted but only probabiIified. M
Carnap's writings in the 1940s and 1950s portray him as espousing
a "logical" conception of probability. But by the late 1950s and early
1960s, he clearly favored a view that can be termed tempered per-
sonalism: probability is rational degree of belief.15 I will have more
to say on this matter in section 8, but in the meantime I will present
Carnap as a tempered Bayesian personalist.
A shotgun marriage of Kuhn and Carnap could be arranged by
taking Carnap to supply the probabilities, Kuhn to supply the values
or utilities, and then applying the rule of maximizing the expected
utility to render a decision on theory choice.16 But like most shotgun
marriages, this one would be a mistake. For Carnap it would be a
mistake because it would involve the pretense that the accepted the-
22
John Carman
ory is certain even though one's degree of belief in the theory may
be less than one, perhaps substantially so. For Kuhn it would also be
a mistake, since the efficacy of his values does not depend on the
truth of the theories, so estimates of the probable truth of the theories
is irrelevant to Kuhnian theory choice.
Part of the wrangle here derives from the unfortunate phrase
"theory choice." Scientists do choose theories, but on behalf of Car-
nap, I would claim that they choose them only in the innocuous sense
that they choose to devote their time and energy to them: to articu-
lating them, to improving them, to drawing out their consequences,
to confronting them with the results of observation and experiment.
Choice in this sense allows for a reconciliation of Bayes and Kuhn,
since this choice is informed by both Baycsian and Kuhnian factors:
probability and the values of accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity,
and fruitfulncss.
Alas, this reconciliation is rather shallow. Once we are clear that
the sort of choice involved in "theory choice" is a practical one, there
is nothing sacred about the list of items on Kuhn's list of values.
Other values, such as getting an NSF grant or winning the Nobel
Prize, can and do enter. Further, the kind of choice in question allows
a scientist to be bigamous, since he can choose to work on two or
more theories at once, and it allows him to be fickle, since he can
oscillate back and forth. The kind of choice Structure envisioned was
much more permanent; indeed, the impression given there is that
normal science is not possible without tying Catholic bonds to a
theory, bonds that can only be broken by leaving the Church, i.e., by
creating a revolution.
Is there no way to bridge the gap between Carnap and Kuhn on
this issue? To see how baffling the Bayesian finds the notion of theory
acceptance, consider the case of Einstein's general theory of relativity
(GTR), arguably the leading theory of gravitation and thus the top
candidate for acceptance. Marie, a research worker in the field fa-
miliar with all of the relevant experimental findings, does some in-
trospection and finds that her degree of belief in GTR is p.
Case 1: p is 1, or so near 1 as makes no odds. Here there is a natural
sense in which the Bayesian can say that Marie accepts GTR. Such
cases, however, arc so rare as to constitute anomalies. Of course, one
23
Carnap, Kuhn, and llic Philosophy of Scientific Mclhodology
can cite any number of cases from the history of science where
scientists seem to be saying for their pet theories that they set p = 1.
Here I would urge the need to distinguish carefully between scientists
as advocates of theories versus scientists as judges of theories. The
latter role concerns us here, and in that role scientists know, or should
know, that only in very exceptional cases does the evidence rationally
support a full belief in a theory. Let us move on to case 2.
Case 2: p is, say, .75. Subsequently Marie decides to "accept" GTR on
the basis of her probability assignments and the values she attaches
to GTR and its competitors. What could this mean?
Subcase 2a. When she accepts GTR, Marie changes her degree of
belief from .75 to 1. This is nothing short of folly, since she has
already made a considered judgment about evidential support and
no new relevant evidence occasioning a rejudgment has come in.
Suitcase 2b. When she accepts GTR, Marie docs not change her de-
gree of belief from .75 to 1, but she acts as z/all doubt were swept
away in that she devotes every waking hour to showing that various
puzzling astronomical observations can be explained by the theory,
she assigns her graduate students research projects that presuppose
the correctness of the theory, she writes a textbook on gravitational
research that is devoted almost exclusively to GTR, etc. But at this
point we have come full circle back to a sense of theory acceptance
that is really a misnomer, for what is involved is a practical decision
about the allocation of personal and institutional resources and not
a decision about the cpistcmic status of the theory.
This rather pedantic diatribe on theory acceptance would be best
forgotten were it not for its implications for our picture of normal
science. As we have seen, theory "choice" or "acceptance" can refer
cither to adopting an epislemic attitude or to making a practical
choice. In the former case there is no natural Bayesian explication
of theory acceptance save in the case where the probability of the
theory is one. Since scientists as judges of theories are almost never
in a position to justify such an acceptance, the Bayesian prediction is
that rarely is a theory accepted in the epistemic sense. Similarly, when
theory choice is a matter of deciding what theory to devote one's lime
and energy to, the Bayesian prediction is that in typical situations
John l'.arnian
One could argue that not having a paradigm in the stricter sense
of a shared theory of gravitation has lowered the puzzle-solving
efficiency of normal science. One can recall Thornc and Will's (1971)
lament thai, faced with a zoo of alternative theories of gravitation,
astrophysicists where hamstrung in their model-building activity.
While I think that this is a fair observation, I also think that there is
more to progress in normal science than puzzle solving. In particular,
I would emphasize the conceptual advances derived from the explo-
ration of the space of possible theories, a point that brings me to the
second part of my partial answer to the problem of consensus.
Again, if I had the space, I would argue that insofar as a consensus
is established, it is often due to a process akin to the much maligned
idea of eliminativc induction. This process is often accompanied by
a proliferation of theories, not as an exercise in Feyerabendian an-
archy or Dadaism, but as a means of probing the possibilities and as
a preliminary to developing a classification scheme that makes sys-
tematic elimination a tractable exercise.20 The elimination is not of
the simplcmindcd Sherlock Holmes variety, for it involves Bayesian
elements, especially in the assessment of the auxiliary assumptions
needed to bring about a confrontation of theory and experiment.
Thus the Baycsianizcd version of the problem of consensus remains.
And at the present time I do not see any resolution that does not fall
back on something like the definitional solution, which I casually
dismissed in the preceding section. Such a fallback undermines sci-
entific objectivity in a way that would not have pleased Carnap and,
I presume, docs not please K u h n cither. ,
10 Conclusion
Notes
Sections 6-9 of this paper arc based on chapter 8 of Earman 1992. I am grateful to
Richard Jeffrey and Wcs Salmon for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
2. Or so it was thought until Ayer and others tried to spell out the conditions for
vcrifiabilily. For a review of the problems encountered, see Hcmpcl 1950, 1951, 1965.
4. "Analog[iich] isl die Entiuicklung der wiisenschaftliclien Theoricn ill verslchen: nicht als
gcrichlcl auf ( ] die idéale, wahrc [?] Thcoric, die tint wahrc Thcoric ubcr die
Well [ ], sondcrn Enlwicklung al Schritt zu cincr bcsscrcn 1'orm, durch Auswnhl
cincr aus incineren kompclicrcndcn die Auswahl gcschichl durch Bcvorzugung in
dcr community dcr Wisscnschafllcr, wobci allcrhand soziologi, kullurcllc usw. Fakto-
re n milspiclcn. Nichl: »Wirkommcn dcr Wahrhcit nahcr,« sondcrn »Wir vcrbcsscrn
cin Instrument.» Archive for Scientific Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, document
no. KG 082-03-01:1 r/1. Quoted by permission of the University of Pittsburgh; all rights
reserved. 1 am grateful to Pirmin Slccklcr-Wiclhofcr for providing the English
translation.
8. In ibis period Carnap was under the illusion that the logic of science could be
discussed purely in terms of logical syntax, but the point 1 am making here holds with
respect to synlax and scmanlics. Carnap's 1930s strategy for dissolving philosophical
problems appears in slightly new garb in his distinction between "internal" and "ex-
ternal questions" (sec Carnap 1950).
10. Fcigl's paper for the Schilpp volume was written in 1954. But due to delays, the
volume did not appear until 1963.
11. While the use-of this language may not be appropriate for understanding all the
historical disputes, it docs help to illuminate the long running disputes over absolute
versus relational conceptions of space and lime (sec Earman 1989).
12. Here is a place where a resort to Carnapian subscripting may be healthy. I Use \
"incoinmcnsurabilityi" to indicate Kulin's sense of incommensurability that derives
34
John Karman
from changes in the lexicon, and 1 use "¡ncommcnsurability2" to stand for the kind of
incommensurability that makes theory choice impossible or difficult by means of
relatively neutral observations. My claims arc that incommensurability) docs not imply
incommensurability; and that as .1 matter of actual historical fact incommensurability:
is not so bad in typical cases of scientific revolutions.
13. Since 1 have never been able to understand what is at issue here, I don't know
whether I should demur.
H. Sec Carnap 1962, I963c, and 1968. Carnap was not a dogmatist on this matter.
In his final published pronouncement on this matter he wrote, "When I say that the
end result of inductive reasoning is not the acceptance of a hypothesis, but rather the
assignment of a probability to the hypothesis, this is not meant as a description of
what is actually done, but rather as a proposal for a rational reconstruction. Therefore,
although in the present controversy I agree essentially with Professor Bar-Hillcl [who
argues against rules of acceptance) against Professor Kyburg [who argues for rules of
acceptance], 1 am quite doubtful about one view in which they seem to agree, that we
have to choose between two irreconcilable positions. I do not think, as Kyburg docs,
that our using or not using rules of acceptance (or detachment) makes a vast difference
in our philosophy of science. Nor would I, like Bar-Hillcl, totally condemn such rules"
(1968, 146), For the sake of a sharp contrast with Kuhn, I am presenting a Carnap
who would condemn rules of acceptance. Contrary to Carnap, I think that one's
attitude on this matter docs make a significant difference for one's image of science.
15. I have borrowed the phrase "tempered pcrsonalism" from Shimony (1970).
10. There is a bit of awkwardness here, since in Carnap's systems of inductive logic
the probability of theories for infinite domains will be flatly zero. Carnap was thus
forced to talk about "instance confirmation" of theories. I will pass over this difficulty,
since it is one that is peculiar to Carnap's language-based systems and docs not apply •
to Uaycsianism in general.
17. For a detailed discussion of these matters, sec chapter 6 of Earman 1992.
18. Archive for Scientific Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, document no. 084-
16-01.
20. Again, sec Earman 1992 for a discussion of how this exercise works for rclalivistic
gravitational theory.
21. The able hands of Wesley Salmon have taken up the work (sec Salmon 1990).
References
Carnap, R. 1928. Der logisclie Au/bau der Welt. English translation: The Logical Structure
of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.
Carnap, R. 1934. Logisehe Syntax der Sprache. English translation: The Logical Syntax of
Language. London: Roullcdgc and Kcgan Paul, 1937.
Carnap, Kuliii, and the Philosophy of Scientific Methodology
Carnap, R. 1949. "Truth and Confirmation," in H. Fcigl and W. Scllars, cds., Readings
in Philosophical A nalysis. New York: Applclon-Ccntury-Crofls.
Carnap, R. 1968. "On Rules of Acceptance." In I. Lakalos, cd., The Problem of Inductive
Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Davidson, D. 1973. "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Framework." Proceedings and'
Address of the American Philosophical Society 47:5—12.
Carman, J. 1989. World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute versus Relational Theories of
Space and Time. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fcigl, H. 1958. "The 'Mental' and the 'Physical'." In H. Fcigl, M. Scrivcn, and G.
Maxwell, cds., Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem, Minnesota Studies in the
Philosophy of Science, vol. 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Friedman, M. 1992. "Philosophy and the Exact Sciences: Logical Positivism as a Case
Study." In |. fcirman, cd.. Inference, Explanation, and Other Frustrations: Essays in the
Philosophy of Science. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd cd. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. 1977. "Objectivity, Value Judgments, and Theory Choice." In The Essential
Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lchrcr, K. and Wagner, C. 1981. Rational Consensus in Science and Society. Dordrecht:
D. Kcidcl.
Rcisch, G. A. 1991. "Did Kuhn Kill Logical Empiricism?" Philosophy of Science 58:264-
277.
i
Salmon, W. 1990. "Rationality and Objectivity in Science; or, Tom Kuhn Meets Tom
Hayes." In C. W. Savage, cd., Scientific Theories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Schilpp, P. A. 1963. Tlie Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. La Salic, III.: Open Court.
Shapcrc, D. 1966. "Meaning and Scientific Change." In R. G. Colodny, cd., Mind and
Cosmos. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Shimony, A. 1970. "Scientific Inference." In R. G. Colodny, cd., The Nature and Function
af Scientific Theories. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.